get_node_signals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any edge cases, such as whether inherited signals are included, what happens for invalid node types, or the exact nature of the response. The minimal behavior is implied but not explicitly described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only getter), the description covers the primary function. However, it does not describe the return format or error behavior, and no output schema exists. This leaves a notable gap for the agent to predict the tool's response, making it adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning by clarifying that the single 'type' parameter refers to a 'node type', which aligns with the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, this is minimal compensation; it does not specify valid values, formats, or examples. The agent can infer the parameter's purpose but lacks full semantic detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get available signals of a node type' uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('available signals') and scope ('node type'), making it distinct from the sibling 'list_signals' which likely covers a broader scope. The purpose is immediately understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_signals' or 'connect_signal'. The description implies its use for a specific node type but provides no exclusions or context for selection among siblings. This is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.